Kodak Plus X- How I Miss This Film

[albada]

I really dont know any other Kodak film they'd want to bring back other than this film here. Nothing in their lineup suggests any other film is on their radar. They can tell us to use TMAX 100 till they're blue in the face, but Plus X looks quite different then TMAX 100 by a lot. Grain is one thing. Contrast is another. That old school look is another. How it shoots in the sun is another. The way it handles tones compared to other films. That glow it has in some shots. I can go on. Anyway I feel like Im repeating myself with posts like this, as others tell me Kodak has no interest in reviving anything Im interested in. Im just glad I have quite a bit of this film in 35mm and 120. It keeps fairly well. I also have a few rolls of it in Arista Premium 100. Haven't shot any of that yet. Im not expecting anything different with it though.

Much of what you're describing is due to the shape of the H-D curve for Plus-X. An upswept curve improves gradation of highlights, at the cost of darker and less contrasty shadows.
Developers affect the shape of that curve, so you might try different developers and see whether you can get the effect you like.

Mark

 

[braxus]

Much of what you're describing is due to the shape of the H-D curve for Plus-X. An upswept curve improves gradation of highlights, at the cost of darker and less contrasty shadows.
Developers affect the shape of that curve, so you might try different developers and see whether you can get the effect you like.

Mark

Mark. Since FP4 is the closest thing to Plus X, how would you proceed to get that look out of FP4?

 

[Bill Burk]

I’ve got 100’ of Plus-X and 100’ plus of Panatomic-X that are my “lifetime supply”. I may share a roll here and there with friends but it’s my stash… because I know exactly where you’re coming from.

You can probably find my comments scattered all over the place because I never miss the chance to say something.

At the same time I exclaim I can’t imagine life without these films… I also enjoy TMY2 and TMAX100. They are different. But all are great films.

And I kind of like 5222 too

 

[Rolleiflexible]

How would you compare Plus-X to Verichrome Pan? Verichrome is a gap in my knowledge of Kodak lore. I've shot it a couple of times and liked it when I did. Would it be a candidate for resurrection by Kodak Alaris?

 

[MattKing]

In the last several years, Verichrome Pan was just the Plus-X emulsion coated with less anti-halation, according to Robert (Bob )Shanebrook (laser here on Photrio, and the author of "Making Kodak Film") who was the Production Line Manager for still films for Eastman Kodak for more than 20 years.

 

[Craig]

I'm going by memory from something either PE or Laser said, but if I recall VP was the same basic emulsion as PX, but didn't have as effective an anti-halation layer. VP was considered a film for less demanding amateur applications. and PX was suitable for pro/commercial use.

 

[JensH]

Ok,

FP4+ in Pyrocat is really great, so I don't miss PlusX.
Tried it, but the difference was not much...

To have PanatomicX back (or the original Panatomic) would be fantastic.
I've shot some of them (and the ortho Perutz Silbereosin multilayer low asa film), and liked them a lot.

Best
Jens

 

[MattKing]

Great minds think alike .
Verichrome (not Pan) was quite different, as were the earlier versions of Verichrome Pan. But at the end, Verichrome Pan was Kodak's budget film - cheaper to make, and well suited to box cameras.
As far as I know, it was never offered in 135, and I'm not sure about 120.

 

[braxus]

My understanding of Verichrome Pan (I have some of this in my freezer too), is the earlier stuff before it was basically Plus X, was a dual layer coated emulsion with differing film speeds. The reason was to use in old cameras with no light meter, and basically guessing exposure. It helped with over and under exposures with the dual layer. I dont know if this applied to the last version of it though.

And yes Matt, it was in 120.

 

[Craig]

Great minds think alike .
Verichrome (not Pan) was quite different, as were the earlier versions of Verichrome Pan. But at the end, Verichrome Pan was Kodak's budget film - cheaper to make, and well suited to box cameras.
As far as I know, it was never offered in 135, and I'm not sure about 120.

Indeed! Or fools never differ, one of the two!

Verichrome Pan was offered in 120; I shot a few rolls of it, probably in the early 90's.

 

[MattKing]

My understanding of Verichrome Pan (I have some of this in my freezer too), is the earlier stuff before it was basically Plus X, was a dual layer coated emulsion with differing film speeds. The reason was to use in old cameras with no light meter, and basically guessing exposure. It helped with over and under exposures with the dual layer. I dont know if this applied to the last version of it though.

And yes Matt, it was in 120.

Courtesy of a contact I have in the film industry:

Essentially, all black and white films since the very early days of film manufacture are “two-emulsion”, or more, films. In order to obtain films with speeds fast enough for indoor photography, films required multiple sized grains and for a film to become panchromatic, that meant that grains of different sizes would require dying to record red, green or blue light. Each of those dyed grain “sets”, in their own emulsion could then be mixed into one large emulsion to coat or split up to coat in several layers.

Another means of making a “two-emulsion” black and white film would be to split the grain sizes into small to mid-sized and mid-sized to large each set to its own emulsion, and mixing all three dyed silver grains together for a slow-to-mid and a mid-to-fast emulsion. All panchromatic black and white films manufactured for still film photography have been manufactured like this for a very long time, perhaps 40 years or more.

Why?

Separating the grain sizes gives the advantage for the film manufacture to better control the film speed when the emulsions are made, and also when they are coated. Light absorbing dyes can be added to optimize a specific region of the DlogE curve’s speed by dying the specific emulsion, which will lead to better consistency and linearity in the product. These are tools that the manufacturer would not have if all the speeds were coated “all as one”.

And yes, due to their physical characteristics, the emulsion components with different speeds are usually coated one on top of the other.

Thanks for the info on 120 - I don't recall ever using it in that format, but certainly used it in 127, 620 and 616.

 

[Bill Burk]

“Double emulsion” is in a lot of film. (From Laser’s first edition of Making Kodak Film)

 

[Bill Burk]

Courtesy of a contact I have in the film industry:

Essentially, all black and white films since the very early days of film manufacture are “two-emulsion”, or more

Exactly

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Mark. Since FP4 is the closest thing to Plus X, how would you proceed to get that look out of FP4?

Xtol 1+3. I did tests many years ago with this dilution, constant agitation in tubes. Toe was lengthened, with slight upsweep in the curve. These are characteristics similar to Tri-X. Maybe you should just use that

 

[Craig]

Xtol 1+3. I did tests many years ago with this dilution, constant agitation in tubes. Toe was lengthened, with slight upsweep in the curve. These are characteristics similar to Tri-X. Maybe you should just use that

Would DK-50 work too? I understand it tends to produce that sort of curve.

 

[Cholentpot]

First films I shot and developed myself was Plus-X. I bought out the expired stock from a local mom n' pop place. They basically gave it to me, thought I was crazy for wanting to shoot film at that point. My expectations of b&w film are built on the look of PX. I'd love for it to come back but I'm not holding my breath. Tmax-100 is amazing stuff, and I've found Double-X to be a pretty good replacement in my lineup for Plus-X. I still have a few rolls kicking around my freezer for good summer days.

 

[GregY]

Great minds think alike .
Verichrome (not Pan) was quite different, as were the earlier versions of Verichrome Pan. But at the end, Verichrome Pan was Kodak's budget film - cheaper to make, and well suited to box cameras.
As far as I know, it was never offered in 135, and I'm not sure about 120.

I just finished my last rolls of Verichrome Pan 120... Lovely film. FP4 in Pyrocat as Jens said...is great & my go-to. TMax100 or Agfapan 25 (remaining few) if grainless is my desire.....but FP4 for tonality in MF.....and even moreso in 5x7.... fills the bill

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Thanks for the info on 120 - I don't recall ever using it in that format, but certainly used it in 127, 620 and 616.

Over time, Kodak sold Verichrome Pan in 120, 127, 116, 126, 616, 110, 620, and 828 formats. As far as I know, Kodak never packaged it in 35mm cassettes. Note that these are format designations, not width in mm (some characters on the internet call 120 film 120mm - as if they did not try using a ruler). The 126 was the Instamatic cartridge, and the 110 was the smaller cartridge for 110 cameras. As of 1996, they even sold it in long roll for Cirkut panorama cameras.

I did not use Verichrome Pan when it was current. But a friend sent me a roll, and I had great results:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2021/03/another-expired-film-treasure-kodak.html

As for reviving Plus-X or Verichrome Pan, I think there is minimal or zero chance. The big three already offer 4 films in the 100 class, plus some offerings from smaller companies. And the 400 speed class is also well covered. There may be a niche in the slow, traditional grain category. Ilford has its Pan-F. But possibly another film like the old Panatomic-X or Afgapan 25 would be profitable.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Would DK-50 work too? I understand it tends to produce that sort of curve.

It certainly does for HP5. I dilute it at 1+1 when I want to use HP5 for carbon printing. It just much eliminates its shoulder.

 

[GregY]

Over time, Kodak sold Verichrome Pan in 120, 127, 116, 126, 616, 110, 620, and 828 formats. As far as I know, Kodak never packaged it in 35mm cassettes. Note that these are format designations, not width in mm (some characters on the internet call 120 film 120mm - as if they did not try using a ruler). The 126 was the Instamatic cartridge, and the 110 was the smaller cartridge for 110 cameras. As of 1996, they even sold it in long roll for Cirkut panorama cameras.

I did not use Verichrome Pan when it was current. But a friend sent me a roll, and I had great results:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2021/03/another-expired-film-treasure-kodak.html

As for reviving Plus-X or Verichrome Pan, I think there is minimal or zero chance. The big three already offer 4 films in the 100 class, plus some offerings from smaller companies. And the 400 speed class is also well covered. There may be a niche in the slow, traditional grain category. Ilford has its Pan-F. But possibly another film like the old Panatomic-X or Afgapan 25 would be profitable.

I haven't found Pan F to be the easiest film to work with, although i've had some spectacular results. Agfapan 25 on the other hand (especially when/if restricted to 35mm)...... i'd fill both fridges with it. Love than film.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I haven't found Pan F to be the easiest film to work with, although i've had some spectacular results.

I have only used Pan-F once in recent years. On a gloomy overcast day, I had great results (all tripod-mounted, of course):

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2021/03/another-film-treasure-ilford-pan-f-plus.html

When I finally use up the remainder of my 120 Panatomic-X, I'll probably shift to Acros or Tmax 100, but Pan-F is an option. I'm glad they make it.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Matt and Craig, thanks for the Verichrome education. I'm glad I asked. FWIW, I shot it only in 120 rolls, so I can confirm that it was available in that format.

 

[braxus]

What exactly is DK50? Is it easy to come by? Any sample pictures using this developer?

 

[Craig]

DK-50 is a long discontinued Kodak developer. Can be grainy, primarily used for sheet film and was claimed to be a good fit for portraiture type work where you want to emphasize the mid tones ( at least for Caucasian subjects). Using it 1:1 tames the contrast, undiluted gives more contrast than D76. There has been much discussion here about it, and the formula is :

Water (52C or 125F) 500.0 ml
Kodak Elon Dev Agent (Metol) 2.5 grams
Sodium Sulfite, dessicated 30.0 grams
Hydroquinone 2.5 grams
Kodalk (Sodium Metaborate) 10.0 grams
Potassium Bromide 0.5 grams
Add cold water to make 1 litre

Dissolve chemicals in the order given.

You can often see old cans of it on ebay if you want to try some.

 

[braxus]

I think it came in bags as well, did it not? I revived an old thread on this developer.